Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

1. I've long been a fan of rolling releases; it's only the fear of having to rebuild my workstation / laptop occasionally that keeps me from running Rawhide by default. 2. I don't think it's the release schedule that impacts Fedora's popularity relative to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is popular because

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:29:29AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 9 December 2016 at 07:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > >> > >> No that is a separate data set. > > > > The title of the graph might need a little adjustment :) > > Ah thanks. I have fixed the title

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 04:21:27PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> Ah thanks. I have fixed the title and added a reverse stacked graph > >> https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/fedora-all-stacked-ma.png > > What happened in late 2014? > We dropped SSLv2 and SSLv3 and some TLS algorithms. This

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 9 December 2016 at 16:06, Scott Schmit wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:29:29AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Ah thanks. I have fixed the title and added a reverse stacked graph >> >> https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/fedora-all-stacked-ma.png > > What happened in

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 10 Dec 2016 08:06, "Scott Schmit" wrote: On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:29:29AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Ah thanks. I have fixed the title and added a reverse stacked graph > > https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/fedora-all-stacked-ma.png What happened in late 2014?

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:29:29AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Ah thanks. I have fixed the title and added a reverse stacked graph > > https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/fedora-all-stacked-ma.png What happened in late 2014? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 9 December 2016 at 07:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> >> No that is a separate data set. > > The title of the graph might need a little adjustment :) Ah thanks. I have fixed the title and added a reverse stacked graph

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:04:14PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 8 December 2016 at 20:00, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > >> On 8 December 2016 at 19:30, Peter Robinson

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 8 December 2016 at 20:00, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> On 8 December 2016 at 19:30, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Matthew Miller

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 8 December 2016 at 19:30, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> The stats I get are about a week behind, which

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:43:58PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> I'm not sure it's much harder to do without modularity. Right now >> Fedora could do a Fedora 26 release without any conventional release >> media for

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 8 December 2016 at 19:30, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> The stats I get are about a week behind, which means I now have >> information about the first week of the Fedora 25 release. See the

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:41:27PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 16:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >>

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > The stats I get are about a week behind, which means I now have > information about the first week of the Fedora 25 release. See the > graph here: > >

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:00:35AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: >> With my QA hat on, I believe using decimal releases (integers, >> characters or anything else) is a bad idea. The reason is that people >> don't

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On lunes, 5 de diciembre de 2016 9:47:43 AM CST Matthew Miller wrote: > The stats I get are about a week behind, which means I now have > information about the first week of the Fedora 25 release. See the > graph here: > > https://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/stats/fedora-os-select-2016-11-22.png > >

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

I feel like the batched update makes a lot of sense, providing the same amount of QA/testing time is still provided and some rules are set on what can and cannot be pushed in that update. E.g., since GTK now has a LTS model, I would assume major release updates would only ever be pushed to

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:13:51PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:11:06AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > I expect we'd also rebase the virtualization stack in any .1 release, > > or even in the middle of a release if Fedora switched to a yearly > > major release

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 16:47 -0500, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > So you restrict a .1 release to anything critical to the running of > the OS, and let the apps upgrade as they want. You say that like it's something trivial, rather than something we've spent (by my count) about 4 years trying to

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 6 December 2016 at 09:00, Kamil Paral wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version >> > your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken >> > and they

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:00:35AM -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > With my QA hat on, I believe using decimal releases (integers, > characters or anything else) is a bad idea. The reason is that people > don't remember it. Most people remember whether they have Fedora Assuming we're generally leading

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:11:06AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > I expect we'd also rebase the virtualization stack in any .1 release, > or even in the middle of a release if Fedora switched to a yearly > major release cycle. 6+ months is already a long time to wait to push > out new features

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version > > your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken > > and they wait for .1. Some wait for .2 (which doesn't exist in your > > proposal

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:41:27PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 16:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> It was by design, though — for a while, when a schedule slipped, we > >> planned the

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:23PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 5 December 2016 at 19:59, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:43AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> The stats I get are about a week behind, which means I now have >

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 5 December 2016 at 19:59, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:43AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> The stats I get are about a week behind, which means I now have >> information about the first week of the Fedora 25 release. See the >> graph

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 19:12 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > That's exactly why I'm suggesting the point release or batched update > — > that would include a GNOME bump. OK then, if we're willing to bump all of GNOME in a point release (that's a lot of stuff!) then I don't object.

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 16:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> It was by design, though — for a while, when a schedule slipped, we >> planned the next schedule as 6 or 7 months from the actual release. >> This time, we

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:10:39PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 12:59:41AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Can you publish the data that was used to make this graph? > > (I don't mean the raw logs, just the table of #IPs vs date vs release) > > We don't

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 12:59:41AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Can you publish the data that was used to make this graph? > (I don't mean the raw logs, just the table of #IPs vs date vs release) We don't want to expose the IP addresses. Actually, *I* don't even see them. Is there

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:47:43AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > The stats I get are about a week behind, which means I now have > information about the first week of the Fedora 25 release. See the > graph here: > > https://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/stats/fedora-os-select-2016-11-22.png Can you

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:03:32PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I still think it's a good idea for Workstation. We really need to be > seen as the leading GNOME distro: that's what gets GNOME people using > Workstation and recommending that other people install it, then those > people

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 16:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > It was by design, though — for a while, when a schedule slipped, we > planned the next schedule as 6 or 7 months from the actual release. > This time, we tried to keep it to October even though the previous > release had slipped, resulting

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On 5 December 2016 at 17:18, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version >> your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken >> and

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version >> your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken >> and

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version > your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken > and they wait for .1. Some wait for .2 (which doesn't exist in your >

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 05:01:24PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > There is another problem with .0...N releases. As soon as you version > your main release like that, everyone assumes .0 is unstable or broken > and they wait for .1. Some wait for .2 (which doesn't exist in your > proposal but

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:43:58PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> I'm not sure it's much harder to do without modularity. Right now >> Fedora could do a Fedora 26 release without any conventional release >> media for

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:43:58PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> I'm not sure it's much harder to do without modularity. Right now >> Fedora could do a Fedora 26 release without any conventional release >> media for

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > still not sure what that means? Software is constantly being updated, > > evolving. How does running older versions of software increase > > "impact"? > > I'm not saying running older versions increases it --

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:43:58PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > I'm not sure it's much harder to do without modularity. Right now > Fedora could do a Fedora 26 release without any conventional release > media for server and workstation, by just using dnf system-upgrade and > gnome-software. And in

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 12:41:18PM -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > If you're saying that you believe 5 months wasn't long enough - I > suppose that is fair... but the reason there was only 5 months wasn't > by design - it was due to schedule slippage. As far as impact - I It was by design, though —

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:04:11AM -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > >> > So, first, putting together a release is a lot of work. If we're >> > stepping on the toes of the previous releases, are we wasting some of >> >

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > So, first, putting together a release is a lot of work. If we're > > > stepping on the toes of the previous releases, are we wasting some of > > > that work? > > I don't see the relevance of that observation.

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:04:11AM -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > So, first, putting together a release is a lot of work. If we're > > stepping on the toes of the previous releases, are we wasting some of > > that work? > I don't see the relevance of that observation. A new version, > whenever

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > So, first, putting together a release is a lot of work. If we're > stepping on the toes of the previous releases, are we wasting some of > that work? > I don't see the relevance of that observation. A new

Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

The stats I get are about a week behind, which means I now have information about the first week of the Fedora 25 release. See the graph here: https://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/stats/fedora-os-select-2016-11-22.png (and please note the caveats about what you're looking at — the numbers on the left